Szczepura, Ala, Freeman, Karoline, Osipenko, Leeza and Hyde, Julia (2005) Emerging prenatal genetic tests : developing a health technology assessment (HTA) framework for informed decision-making. [Coventry]: University of Warwick. (Initial report).

Preview

PDF WRAP_Szczepura_DelphiReportfinal.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (2921Kb)

Abstract

Delphi Process In preparation for the first Delphi exercise, a list of questions was produced from the academic literature, webbased sources and interviews with experts. These questions were structured into broad dimensions and a draft questionnaire piloted. A final list of 73 questions formed the basis of the first Delphi survey. Participants were asked to grade the perceived importance of each question for inclusion in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic tests (4 = Essential; 3 = Desirable, but not essential; 2 = Useful but should not be required; 1 = Of little/ no importance; 0 = I have no basis for judgement). Secondly, they were asked to indicate whether a question should be addressed during test development or whether the question could be addressed later once the technology is ready for implementation. Finally, Panel members were encouraged to identify any other questions which appeared to be missing from the initial list. For copy of questionnaire, see Annex 1: Delphi Round 1 Questionnaire. Respondents were also asked to provide personal details to give some indication of their HTA experience and specialist expertise. Analysis of responses demonstrated that SAFE Delphi panel members represent a highly experienced, multidisciplinary international group of experts with the knowledge required to define which key questions should be addressed in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic tests. Delphi Responses Responses were received from 77/90 (86%) of Panel members. These were analysed with a cut-off of 75% (±3%) applied as an indicator of Panel consensus for all questions. Thus, any question which three out of four respondents rated as essential or desirable was retained, whilst those not achieving this level of agreement were provisionally excluded. In addition, mean scores were also calculated (excluding 0 = I have no basis for judgement) for each question. A mean score >3.25 ± 0.05 was taken as an indication that the Panel had identified a particular question as being of the highest priority to address in HTA.

Item Type:	Report
Subjects:	R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Warwick Evidence Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Sciences Research Institute (CSRI) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Prenatal diagnosis, Diagnosis, Noninvasive, Fetal cells from maternal blood
Series Name:	Initial report
Publisher:	University of Warwick
Place of Publication:	[Coventry]
ISBN:	0953543056
Date:	December 2005
Number of Pages:	85
Status:	Not Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Description:	Final version (published as open access)
Funder:	Sixth Framework Programme (European Commission) (FP6)
References:	1) Bewley S, Davies M, Braude P. Which career first? The most secure age for child-bearing remains 20- 35. BMJ 2005; 331: 588-9. 2) Barabási AL. Network Theory – the Emergence of the Creative Enterprise. Science 2005; 308: 639- 641. 3) Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance. Science 2005; 308: 697-702. 4) Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J (eds) Assessment of Health Care Technologies: Case Studies, Key Concepts and Strategic Issues, John Wiley, Chichester, 1996. 5) Linstone HA, Turoff M “The Delphi Method”. 1975; Reading, Massachusetts. 6) Lazaro P. Fitch K. From universalism to selectivity: is 'appropriateness' the answer?. Health Policy. 36(3):261-72, 1996 Jun. 7) Hillman BJ. Hessel SJ. Swensson RG. Herman PG. Improving diagnostic accuracy: a comparison of interactive and Delphi consultations. Investigative Radiology 1977; 12(2):112-5 8) Robert G. Gabbay J. Stevens A. Which are the best information sources for identifying emerging health care technologies? An international Delphi survey. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 14(4):636-43, 1998. 9) Whiting P. Rutjes AW. Dinnes J. Reitsma J. Bossuyt PM. Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 8(25):iii, 1-234, 2004 Jun. 10) Fletcher JW. Woolf SH. Royal HD. Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure guidelines: SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 35(12):2003-10, 1994 Dec. 11) Arevalo JA. Washington AE. Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and immunization for hepatitis B virus. JAMA. 259(3):365-9, 1988 Jan 15. 12) Vergeer MM. van Balen F. Ketting E. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an alternative to amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: psychosocial and ethical aspects. Patient Education & Counseling. 35(1):5-13, 1998 Sep. 13) Cassidy DA. Bove CM. Factors perceived to influence parental decision-making regarding presymptomatic testing of children at risk for treatable adult-onset genetic disorders. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing. 21(1):19-34, 1998 Jan-Mar. 14) Evers S. Goossens M. de Vet H. van Tulder M. Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 21(2):240-5, 2005. 15) Maibach H. Keenlyside R. Fitzmaurice D. Brogan D. Essien J. Future directions for research in laboratory medicine: the findings of a Delphi survey of stakeholders. Clinical Laboratory Management Review. 12(4):221-30; discussion 231, 1998 Jul-Aug. 16) Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. WHO Public Paper 34. Geneva: World Health Bibliography Organization, 1968. 17) Whitby LG. Screening for disease: Definitions and criteria. Lancet 2:819-822, 1974. 18) Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Task Force: A review of the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20: 21-35, 2001. 19) Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP et al. The art and science of incorporating cost-effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20: 36-43, 2001. Emerging Prenatal Genetic Tests: Developing HTA Framework for Informed Decision-making 20) Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. Journal of the American Medical Association 1977; 238: 224-30. 21) Institute of Medicine. Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington DC: National Academy press, 1985. 22) Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for Authors and Peer reviewers of Economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 313: 275-83, 1996. 23) Wald N, Cuckle H. Reporting the assessment of screening and diagnostic tests. British J Obstetrics and Gynaecology 96: 389-396, 1989. 24) http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE.htm 25) STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) Initiative. http://www.consortstatement. org/standardstatement.htm 26) Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J "Interests in health care technology assessment (HCTA) and HCTA training needs in eight European countries: COMETT-ASSESS" Social Science & Medicine: Economic Appraisal Special Issue; 38: 1679-1688, 1994. 27) Health Technology Assessment in Europe: the challenge of coordination 1999. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Belgium 28) Giacomini M, Mille F, Bowman G. Confronting the 'gray zones' in technology assessment: evaluation genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int. J Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2003; 19: 301-316.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/128

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item